Requirement for Blackbelt = Teaching Ability?

[MaxG]

Just curious how many people think that teaching should be one of the requirements to become a black belt. And I mean as a strict requirement meaning that you need to be able to teach effectively or else you won't be getting a black belt. Period.

[cavallin]

i think thats a bad idea, because not everyone is suited to teaching. it's not fair if you're a rubbish teacher, bad teacher's are bad because they cant make people understand them, they arent patient, they dont encourage etc...
which has nothing to do with MA. and how would you measure how good at teaching someone is? get some white belt up? what if each student they are teaching have different abilities? cos they cant keep teaching the same student obviously.
my thoughts.

[clemsontkd]

i think thats a bad idea, because not everyone is suited to teaching. it's not fair if you're a rubbish teacher, bad teacher's are bad because they cant make people understand them, they arent patient, they dont encourage etc...
which has nothing to do with MA. and how would you measure how good at teaching someone is? get some white belt up? what if each student they are teaching have different abilities? cos they cant keep teaching the same student obviously.
my thoughts.

I also think that could turn people away from the MA. By the time someone goes for their black belt they probably have worked with younger people in their club anyway, so i think that they have adequately covered working with other people and trying to teach.

[Leo_E_49]

I agree, you can be excellent at MA but horrible at teaching and still deserve a black belt. Conversely, there are some people who are great teachers before they've earned their BB.

[Jointlock]

I voted no, but I wanted to vote yes. If you would have had a larger scale I would have voted somewhere in the middle. I think that a student should be exposed to teaching and give it a go a couple times.

In my experience much can be learned from teaching. In order to teach you must know the material, be able to perform it, and be able to explain it. Believe it or not, explaining is often the most difficult part. I have learned much from teaching and I think that my techniques and understanding of the art have jumped miles ahead.

[cavallin]

i agree, but a better version would be: say 20 hours teaching service a year a requirement or something? but you shouldnt be tested on it

[Thomas]

Tough topic (but a good one)

I believe that senior students (pre-black belt) need to learn how to assist in warmups, assist in teaching, and get practice doing it. Here are my reasons:
(1) Seeing or doing something is good. But, teaching something is the most effective way for retention/comprehension/advanced application of the material. You learn more about the art by teaching it.

(2) Senior belts and black belts are looked up and students seek their assistance and emulate them as role models. Any black belt (or senior color belt) then needs to have the skills and practice to be able to assist their juniors. Also, by training color belts and black belts to be able to teach, it allows you to break up classes into more manageble numbers, ensuring a better student:instructor ratio.

(3) The "internship" that students serve learning how to instruct helps them gain a better understanding of the art and provides a deeper level of training beyond "just the techniques". It also helps everyone get to know, accept, and understand each other a lot more... creating a better environment for learning.


Now, as requirements go, we do have a strict requirement for testing for black belt: the student must be able to conduct warmups and assist in supervising, teaching, and reviewing material below their rank. They must demonstrate their abilities over a period of about 6 months or longer before we will consider testing for 1st dan. Why?

Watching a student teach and work with people of various ages and abilities is a good way of assessing their patience, understanding, adaptations, people skills, creativity, work ethic, and so on. If a red belt can't teach white belts their basic form without snapping and yelling and getting frustrated... they won't get a black belt from us.

So, all students learn the basics of supervision and instruction from us and continue doing so through the black belt ranks. However, we do separate out people who want to be instructors and offer more training and responsibility. All of our instructor posiitions are appointed... based on skills and desire, not rank. So, you don't need to become an instructor with us but you do need to learn the basics.

[Brad Ellin]

I vote no. Why? A black belt means you are ready to start learning. It means you have (or should have) a good solid grounding in the basics, but it by no means you are ready or prepared to be a teacher. I agree with Thomas in part, you should be able assist (or even start) the warmups and run thru the basic forms. But, teaching should be done by the teacher.

[Davey Bones]

So, all students learn the basics of supervision and instruction from us and continue doing so through the black belt ranks. However, we do separate out people who want to be instructors and offer more training and responsibility. All of our instructor posiitions are appointed... based on skills and desire, not rank. So, you don't need to become an instructor with us but you do need to learn the basics.

^^^^^^^What he said.

I think it's important for students to have some ability to be able to communicate ideas and concepts to the newer students. As Thomas pointed out these students, the senior ones, are the role models. These are the ones the instructors call upon in a pinch to help out. While they may not want to be instructors, they should at least be able to lead a basic warm up, as well as be able to explain the concepts the lower belts are working on.

What I agree with the most is what I quoted above. Obviously if a student who hits black belt wants to instruct, they will need to be participate in a different traiing program than those who don't. And there is nothing wrong with that. But I certainly do not object to students being asked to assist "x" number of classes, because their ability to comunicate the information they have gathered is an excellent gague of how well they themselves understand it!

So I'd end up voting "yes and no"... "yes", they should have some experience teaching, but "no" they shouldn't have to be an offical instructor to receive a black belt.

(As an aside, I am fairly certain my GM has set up a specific program for instructors, and another for those who want to open their own schools...)

[Jointlock]

Originally posted by Kurohana

I vote no. Why? A black belt means you are ready to start learning. It means you have (or should have) a good solid grounding in the basics, but it by no means you are ready or prepared to be a teacher. I agree with Thomas in part, you should be able assist (or even start) the warmups and run thru the basic forms. But, teaching should be done by the teacher.

I agree that someone that just received there blackbelt should not be left on his/her own to teach. I think the teaching that they do, should be supervised and critiqued by the instructor. Something like this happened at my first school, I came home from the Marines and my first instructor asked if I could teach occasionally. All of the sudden I was teaching every class and I didn't see the instructor for several months at a time. I remember wishing that he would have been there to see me teach and critique me. I have also heard stories of masters that get a couple blackbelts under them then they stop teaching and have their blackbelts run all of their classes without paying them while the Master sits in the office.

However, I still stand by you can't truly learn the art until you try to teach it. Teaching = learning. Everytime I work with someone new it is like I am starting all over again at white belt, because I experience the student learning.

[nj_howard]

...A black belt means you are ready to start learning. It means you have (or should have) a good solid grounding in the basics, but it by no means you are ready or prepared to be a teacher...
Excellent point imo. First dan rank to me means exactly this. Nothing more than that you have achieved basic proficiency in the techniques and philosophy (if applicable) of your chosen art.

A bit off topic I know, but the outlandish things many people unfamiliar with MA think black belts are capable of continue to amaze me. :confused:

[JimH]

I do not feel that teaching SHOULD be a requirement for Black Belt as there are many who can do techniques but do not know how to articulate and fully explain that technique.

Take Joe Lewis for example,he was a Great Fighter a Great Balck Belt ,but he has said that it took him many years to be able to instruct people because he was Great at copying/modeling others and it came easy for him to learn,but not so easy to explain.(should he have not been a black Belt?)

Even though a student does not actually get up and teach a class,as the student grows in their colored belts they should be able to give feed back and basic correction to juniors they work with,this enables them to gain a confidence in their ability to explain and it also helps them understand the technique better themselves.

If a student showed an interest in opening their own school as they approach Black Belt then they could take over some of the instruction ,under supervision ,and be allowed to grow into the role.

Again, we should listen to the students and not create obstacles for some with no interest,but we should encourage those who want to be a leader.
(True leadership comes from within with desire and experience,it is not forced)

[Thomas]

I think the idea of "opening a school" adds a different element. Our school usually promotes a person to 1st dan in about 3-5 years and they earn that dan by developing good technqiue and the basics of instructing. However I think 1st dan (in our system) is way too early to consider opening a school and being the head instructor on a daily basis (in general).

As a student, I would like to see someone with at least 10 years of martial arts experience and at least2 or 3 years of instruction (fulltime) under their belt before they open a school. In our school, that would be a 3rd or 4th dan most likely. (Note: the numbers are just a general idea)

I do look at 1st dan as other have: as a person who has absorbed and generally mastered the basics. From 1st to 5th dan (or so) the process shifts from learning lots of techniques to learning how to apply, integrate, and adapt those techniques. Spending time teaching them is a good way to do that. People who want to become instructors and possibkly open a school need more training specifically in teaching, curriculum and evaluation, and the business side...

[zac_duncan]

I think Jim just nailed it. You should be able to not just perform but also explain the hows and whys of the techniques.


An off-topic note, this weekend I test for my 2nd dan. I haven't been nervous in some time but I'm starting to get jittery now.

[Kwajman]

A lot of people know my opinions on teaching....I don't think it should ever be a requirement. We have students in my school that can barely speak, let alone teach effectively. However some of them are excellent MAtists and shouldn't be denied a BB because of a speech impediment.

[TheGnome]

Why couldn't a person with a severe speech impediment teach? It might require some, or maybe major adaptations, but anyone can teach you something that they have good knowledge in.

As for the teaching requirement I think it depends on what you feel a Black Belt represents. The original Belt Rankings in Kanos' system did mean that you had an understanding of the basics and nothing about teaching. However all concepts evolve, and if in your art or school the BB's are expected to be able to teach, then that should be up to the people of that art/school.

[Davey Bones]

I think the idea of "opening a school" adds a different element. Our school usually promotes a person to 1st dan in about 3-5 years and they earn that dan by developing good technqiue and the basics of instructing. However I think 1st dan (in our system) is way too early to consider opening a school and being the head instructor on a daily basis (in general).

As a student, I would like to see someone with at least 10 years of martial arts experience and at least2 or 3 years of instruction (fulltime) under their belt before they open a school. In our school, that would be a 3rd or 4th dan most likely. (Note: the numbers are just a general idea)

I do look at 1st dan as other have: as a person who has absorbed and generally mastered the basics. From 1st to 5th dan (or so) the process shifts from learning lots of techniques to learning how to apply, integrate, and adapt those techniques. Spending time teaching them is a good way to do that. People who want to become instructors and possibkly open a school need more training specifically in teaching, curriculum and evaluation, and the business side...

If that was in response to me, I'm simply pointing out that my GM takes instruction and running a school so seriously you have to particiapte in a special course to be allowed to open a school and put the Bai Kai name on it!

I agreed with the rest of what you said this time, lol.

[Thomas]

If that was in response to me, I'm simply pointing out that my GM takes instruction and running a school so seriously you have to particiapte in a special course to be allowed to open a school and put the Bai Kai name on it!

It wasn't as much a response as something that came to mind while reading your post. I guess it was an indirect reponse. :)

However I think the GM running a special course to train school owners and give them a good grounding in running the school is a great way to ensure that the name (Bai Kai) doesn't get watered down or mis-applied. I think it's a very good idea. I re-read the first post of yours and think it sounds really good.

[American HKD]

Just curious how many people think that teaching should be one of the requirements to become a black belt. And I mean as a strict requirement meaning that you need to be able to teach effectively or else you won't be getting a black belt. Period.

Greetings

Getting a BB has nothing at all to do with teaching ability.

No one should mix apple and oranges. Earning a BB mean you know the material for yourself.

Just because you graduated High School does'nt make you a teacher.

Teaching and passing on the system, being able to bring someone else to a BB level requires more skills than being able to throw a kick or do a joint lock.

Moreover most BB aren't that good in fact most don't get really good until 2nd or 3rd and that still doesn't make you a good teacher.

[Jointlock]

As for the teaching requirement I think it depends on what you feel a Black Belt represents. The original Belt Rankings in Kanos' system did mean that you had an understanding of the basics and nothing about teaching. However all concepts evolve, and if in your art or school the BB's are expected to be able to teach, then that should be up to the people of that art/school.

Very good point. Obviously people have different ideas of the way things should be.

[Kwajman]

Greetings

Getting a BB has nothing at all to do with teaching ability.


Just because you graduated High School does'nt make you a teacher.




What a great analogy!

[Topher]

I think one of the first things some need to overcome is to actually get used to giving commands to students. Sometimes where i train the mid-level belts or once or twice (high) beginners are allowed to take the warm-up. Occasionally we would also assist the instructor in basic forms and step sparring with the beginners.

I already know our warm-up off by heart so don’t see why someone can’t get used to doing it.

I think it's worth getting them used to supervising/teaching as soon as they show ability to do so, then when there at the higher ranks they can feel comfortable with giving instructions and minor teaching they can really focus on the actual instructing.

Even though I know I don’t want to teach for a long time yet I don’t want to miss this opportunity to learn this stuff.

To answer the question i dont think it should be a requirment, but should be made avaliable.

[MaxG]

Very interesting results so far. At this moment 63% say that no it shouldn't be a requirement.

So I guess if I went to all those schools that voted "no" then your Black Belts that you or your teacher have appointed aren't necessarily capable of teaching the lower rank techniques to the lower students?

So what I am saying is that it's ok for a Black Belt in those schools to be able to do the technique but if he can't teach a white belt how to do simple breakaways then it's ok?

Just clarifying.

[Brad Ellin]

Very interesting results so far. At this moment 63% say that no it shouldn't be a requirement.

So I guess if I went to all those schools that voted "no" then your Black Belts that you or your teacher have appointed aren't necessarily capable of teaching the lower rank techniques to the lower students?

So what I am saying is that it's ok for a Black Belt in those schools to be able to do the technique but if he can't teach a white belt how to do simple breakaways then it's ok?

Just clarifying.

Oh, they could effectively teach it, but it is not and should not be a requirement for attaining Black Belt. That was the question. Not whether they were capable of teaching, but if it should be a requirement. I still say that it shouldn't.

[American HKD]

Very interesting results so far. At this moment 63% say that no it shouldn't be a requirement.

So I guess if I went to all those schools that voted "no" then your Black Belts that you or your teacher have appointed aren't necessarily capable of teaching the lower rank techniques to the lower students?

So what I am saying is that it's ok for a Black Belt in those schools to be able to do the technique but if he can't teach a white belt how to do simple breakaways then it's ok?

Just clarifying.

Greetings

Your now changing your original question.

Yes maybe they can help "Assist", it still has nothing to do with earning thier own BB.

People here are mixing up Teach and Assist.

The Qualified Master/Instr. "teaches" a BB or other student simply "Assists".

A 1st dan is no Teacher in any art, they just got out of diapers! :bang:

Many of you guys are seriously confused about who's who and who's qualified to be a teacher and it's in no way a 1st dan is. A 2nd dan is begining to understand, a 3rd alittle more and a 4th Dan and above is usually matured enough in a system to teach.

But that does'nt automatically make them a Good Teacher.

[TheCount]

I personally think if someone is going fror their 3rd Dan (where in karate you start teaching) they should prove that they have teaching ability so avoid bad teaching and bad quality of it (ie. GKR)

[pgm316]

I vote no. Why? A black belt means you are ready to start learning. It means you have (or should have) a good solid grounding in the basics, but it by no means you are ready or prepared to be a teacher. I agree with Thomas in part, you should be able assist (or even start) the warmups and run thru the basic forms. But, teaching should be done by the teacher.

I agree, I hate being taught by people that have trained for far less time than I have myself. :o

I don't understand the obsession with having people teach. :confused: Where else would this happen?

It means people get substandard training, then they have teaching to look forward to when they should be learning :D

[Leo_E_49]

In both my TKD and JJ experiences, teaching is separated from actual knowledge of the art or skill. If you want to be a teacher, you have to attain a certain rank (not even black belt, you can teach at brown in TKD and purple in JJ) but you have to attend a Coaching course. There are a number of levels of these courses which qualify you to teach increasing sizes of classes and increasing complexity, etc. If a BB does not have a coaching certification, no matter what the rank, they are NOT permitted to teach. (Assisting in a class is permitted) Teaching/coaching is a separate skillset from MA, just because you can kick well doesn't mean you're a good teacher/coach.

[American HKD]

I personally think if someone is going fror their 3rd Dan (where in karate you start teaching) they should prove that they have teaching ability so avoid bad teaching and bad quality of it (ie. GKR)


Greetings,

That's the "Key" teaching ability.

However you don't know if you can develope into a good teacher until you try.

That's why one needs to be an "Assistant" under a qualified Instr. for a few years to see if they'll develope.

But a black belts shouldn't go running around teaching or opening Dojang's IMO.

[Thomas]

Oh, they could effectively teach it, but it is not and should not be a requirement for attaining Black Belt.
If we want them to be able to teach it, then we are obliged to teach them how to do so (i.e. "to teach").

One of the main reasons that we have (limited) teaching requirements for black belt is to ensure that when other students go to any of our black belts (as they do and as we want them to), that our black belts have the basic philosophy, technqiues, and experience in "teaching" that we require. The basic reason is to make sure that the system is being taught right.
However...
Yes maybe they can help "Assist", it still has nothing to do with earning thier own BB.

People here are mixing up Teach and Assist.

The Qualified Master/Instr. "teaches" a BB or other student simply "Assists".

A 1st dan is no Teacher in any art, they just got out of diapers!

Many of you guys are seriously confused about who's who and who's qualified to be a teacher and it's in no way a 1st dan is. A 2nd dan is begining to understand, a 3rd alittle more and a 4th Dan and above is usually matured enough in a system to teach.

But that does'nt automatically make them a Good Teacher.
I do agree with this. I think that 1st dans should have a basic level of competatnce in assisting and teaching the system but there is no way we should expect them to open a school or be a "master" of the art. For those who don't want to be "instructors", they still need the experience and practice in assisting and basic teaching because they will be asked to do so. Those who are committed to being "instructors" need more specialized and specific traniing and practice for the depth we require from them

[Jointlock]

Greetings

Your now changing your original question.

Yes maybe they can help "Assist", it still has nothing to do with earning thier own BB.

People here are mixing up Teach and Assist.

The Qualified Master/Instr. "teaches" a BB or other student simply "Assists".

A 1st dan is no Teacher in any art, they just got out of diapers! :bang:

Many of you guys are seriously confused about who's who and who's qualified to be a teacher and it's in no way a 1st dan is. A 2nd dan is begining to understand, a 3rd alittle more and a 4th Dan and above is usually matured enough in a system to teach.

But that does'nt automatically make them a Good Teacher.

You are correct that most of us do not agree on the definition of teaching. I would say that most of the people that voted for teaching as a requirement don't think that fresh 1st Dans should be considered teachers. However, anyone that convey's knowledge to someone else is in fact teaching. They may not be "Teachers" but anyone has the ability to teach. By your definition I think that almost all of us would vote for assist as opposed to teach.

You seem to be very hung up on rank as some type of a scale that defines a martial artist. In my opinion rank is an illusion and can only be defined within your own school/organization. I have met 5th and 6th dans that weren't worth their weight in snot. I've also met 2nd and 3rd dans that I would much rather train with because they were much more dedicated to the martial arts. Being able to teach is something that anyone can do, even a yellow belt, but being a good teacher takes dedication, experience, knowledge, and more.

I don't understand the obsession with having people teach. Where else would this happen?

Actually, when I was in college for computer programming there were several occasions where I was asked by other students to tutor them. I was a student and I hadn't graduated, but I would consider what I was doing as teaching. The tutoring didn't replace their regular lectures, but it helped them learn and it helped me understand the subject better.

[pgm316]

Actually, when I was in college for computer programming there were several occasions where I was asked by other students to tutor them. I was a student and I hadn't graduated, but I would consider what I was doing as teaching. The tutoring didn't replace their regular lectures, but it helped them learn and it helped me understand the subject better.

Help and assistance is one thing, but they didn't say "Jointlock! Take the class!"

I don't think teaching ability should be a requirement, but an option you look into when blackbelt.

[MaxG]

Greetings

Your now changing your original question.
Yes maybe they can help "Assist", it still has nothing to do with earning thier own BB.

No I'm not changing my question. You just seem not to be understanding.

You're arguing semantics now. The fact is if you assign a Black Belt in your school to "assist" ,as you call it, in the training of a lower belt, he is "teaching" that lower belt. Thus the question I asked: Should a person be able to teach to be assigned a Black Belt.

Nothing in the original question suggested a 1st Dan opening up their own school as you insinuated.

Using your analogy. If someone graduates from highschool and can't teach someone how to add 10 and 10 together should he have graduated from high school?

For those who don't want to be "instructors", they still need the experience and practice in assisting and basic teaching because they will be asked to do so.


This is the core of the issue at hand. Thank you Thomas for understanding.

I think that everyone can agree that as a Black Belt in a particular school you are looked upon by the other students as someone to go to for help on a particular technique.

Now if an instructor does not see this ability in a potential Black Belt should he withhold dan ranking until such a time as this particular person learns this ability and can be expected to teach a lower rank as is usually expected of a Black Belt?

[Davey Bones]

I think at this point it's philosophical differences coming to the front. It's obvious that some people feel that a first dan is not qualified to teach under any circumstances, while others believe that you should be learnig to teach as soon as possible.

But the fact still remians that students must be able to effectively communicate ideas and concepts to lower belts, and if they hit first dan and stil don't understand their first short form well enought o explain it to another student, you've got some serious problems as to whether or not they really understand the material.

On a certain level, I think the BJJers have it right. They don't worry about ranks and colors as much as they worry about skill.

[Jointlock]

Help and assistance is one thing, but they didn't say "Jointlock! Take the class!"

I don't think teaching ability should be a requirement, but an option you look into when blackbelt.

Good point, I guess my analogy wasn't the best. In most situations that I've been in, when someone learning to teach takes the class the instructor is there helping, correcting, and adding to whatever is being taught. Our requirements on teaching have more to do with what BaiKaiGuy just said. A student should know how to convey the basics in their own words to show understanding and comprehension of the material. This is usually done through assisting a low rank student one on one rather than throwing the student to the wolves and taking over the whole class.

[Utotin]

It appears that this is a very complex issue. My take on it is pretty similar to that of most who have posted. I think that although a BB should not be required to automatically become an "official" instructor, I think that they should be required to not only understand the material well but have at least a minimum ability to teach so that they can assist in class if necessary and be able to step up and "help" their juniors with techniques.

With this being said, I know that not everyone has natural teaching ability, but I think that at it can be taught to some extent. Durring hoshinsool practice I usually like to pair up juniors with a senior if possible (with the instruction to "help them out if they need it") so that the senior is put in a position where they are forced to try and explain things to their partner. I think this helps the senior student to really think through their techniques and eventually helps them develop a "strategy" for imparting their knowledge. Also in regard to the thread about student retaing old techniques, I think that this method also insures that student will remember techniques from previous belts and as we all agree, teaching a technique usually makes one improve their own technique considerably.

I also think that requiring senior student to run warm ups and occaisionally lead the class through basics (punches or kicks) accomplishes a lot. I have noticed that students are terrified to come up to the front of class & do that in the beginning. Eventually their confidence increases to the point that they can do this not only effectively but sometimes even very well. This is a skill they the student may have not realized they had.

Now on to becoming an actual "Instructor." I think that requiring students to aquire at least minimal teaching skills serves a few purposes in this regard. First of all like I mentioned, many people do not realize that they have any talent for this so it gives them an opportunity to realize these hiden skills. Secondly it gives the Head Instructor a chance to see who actually has talent and potential for becoming a good teacher so that they can be mentored and their natural teaching ability can be cultivated to its maximum potential and eventually allow that student to become an actual Instructor within the school and maybe even open up their very own school.

Just my thoughts on the matter. This is the way things were done while I was coming up & it seems to have worked out pretty well.

[American HKD]

No I'm not changing my question. You just seem not to be understanding.

You're arguing semantics now. The fact is if you assign a Black Belt in your school to "assist" ,as you call it, in the training of a lower belt, he is "teaching" that lower belt. Thus the question I asked: Should a person be able to teach to be assigned a Black Belt.

Nothing in the original question suggested a 1st Dan opening up their own school as you insinuated.

Using your analogy. If someone graduates from highschool and can't teach someone how to add 10 and 10 together should he have graduated from high school?



This is the core of the issue at hand. Thank you Thomas for understanding.

I think that everyone can agree that as a Black Belt in a particular school you are looked upon by the other students as someone to go to for help on a particular technique.

Now if an instructor does not see this ability in a potential Black Belt should he withhold dan ranking until such a time as this particular person learns this ability and can be expected to teach a lower rank as is usually expected of a Black Belt?


Greetings,

There's a big difference between a Master Instr. and a 1st dan. An assistant 1st dan doen't have the expertise that a Master does nor is he excepted to by anyone with any sense of reality.

Assistings means he's teaching in some sense, but at what level of competance and real authority? None at all!

A 1st dan can't promote anyone to any level even 1 gup, most Korean based MA require a minimum 4th dan to promote anyone to BB. That goes for Sin Moo, KHF, Kukkiwon, and many others.

It's clear from most Associations that they expect a Full Instr. to be someone with 10-15yrs expirence, 4th dan in rank, many require instructors training camps so Instrs. know how to teach, understand the curriculum, etc.

In the KHF you must be a 3rd dan to attend Instr. training. anyone under that is not considered expirienced enough to teach on thier own authority.

But you still get a 1st, 2nd, 3rd dan without having to be qualified to teach.

[Topher]

Many of you guys are seriously confused about who's who and who's qualified to be a teacher and it's in no way a 1st dan is. A 2nd dan is begining to understand, a 3rd alittle more and a 4th Dan and above is usually matured enough in a system to teach.

I have to say i disagree with that. My instructor is a 2nd Dan (was a 1st Dan when i joined) and i have to say is a great teacher.

I dont think a 1st and 2nd Dan is just "beginning to understand" the system. I would think a solid 5 years of training would put someone in a better position that "just understanding". Sure they have a long way to go to master the training and techniques etc but rank is irrelevant in my eyes. Some people may not bother grading beyong 1st dan, but still progress to higher rank in skill. You've also got to take in teaching ability. Someone may be a brown belt, but learnt to teach from the beginning, and someone who is a 3rd dan who hasn't focused on teaching. Sure, the 3rd dan is better, but the brown belt is the better teacher, hence i would want to learn from the latter. I've also noted that in most styles all you really learn from 1st Dan and above is new forms.

Also it depends on the style. I believe a BJJ purple belt is more than capable of teaching/taking classes (correct me if i'm wrong). And in Wing Chun there are 4 black sash levels, but off all the black level one instructors i've met, all say they will probably never grade again. On another note, green sashes are allowed to teach there own class (up to their level) with permission from Sifu.

[Mufty]

I think that its essential that a Dan grade should be able to teach otherwise why be a Dan grade ? Whats the point of learning such a skill like the Martial arts, that takes so much time and effort, from your instructors to get you where you are, without putting somthing back into the arts.

If you are intending to achive a Dan grade do it because you love the martial arts enough to want to teach other wise just stick at training as a kyu grade.

[Davey Bones]

Also it depends on the style. I believe a BJJ purple belt is more than capable of teaching/taking classes (correct me if i'm wrong).

Anbd they've shown to be quite capable as well. Hence why I pointed this out three or four posts ago... it's not about rank, it's about skill.

[Leo_E_49]

Perhaps we should define teaching as to impart knowledge or skill to a student. Assisting is helping to fine tune what a student has already been taught by a qualified instructor. Teaching is a skill in itself, almost completely unrelated to knowledge. It requires more learning and experience otherwise the knowledge imparted will harm more than help.

Help and assistance is one thing, but they didn't say "Jointlock! Take the class!"

I've had this happen to me without any prior training. Believe me, it was a mistake. Fortunately I convinced my instructor to give me a more structured teaching plan. Even though I'd already had 7 years of training, no amount of it prepared me to teach. I really fudged the lesson. Later my instructor asked me to take a coaching course but I had to leave the class.

[Topher]

Having a black belt doesn’t automatically mean you can teach.

Not having a black belt doesn’t automatically mean you cannot teach.

It’s a simple as that.

[American HKD]

I have to say i disagree with that. My instructor is a 2nd Dan (was a 1st Dan when i joined) and i have to say is a great teacher.

I dont think a 1st and 2nd Dan is just "beginning to understand" the system. I would think a solid 5 years of training would put someone in a better position that "just understanding". Sure they have a long way to go to master the training and techniques etc but rank is irrelevant in my eyes. Some people may not bother grading beyong 1st dan, but still progress to higher rank in skill. You've also got to take in teaching ability. Someone may be a brown belt, but learnt to teach from the beginning, and someone who is a 3rd dan who hasn't focused on teaching. Sure, the 3rd dan is better, but the brown belt is the better teacher, hence i would want to learn from the latter. I've also noted that in most styles all you really learn from 1st Dan and above is new forms.

Also it depends on the style. I believe a BJJ purple belt is more than capable of teaching/taking classes (correct me if i'm wrong). And in Wing Chun there are 4 black sash levels, but off all the black level one instructors i've met, all say they will probably never grade again. On another note, green sashes are allowed to teach there own class (up to their level) with permission from Sifu.

Greetings,

What you say is all relative. To a white belt or blue belt and 2nd dan may know alot and seem quite good. To a 4th dan or Master he's not in the same leauge.

HKD is not TKD a 2nd dan in HKD is 50 times more material than one more practically usless form.

I can also tell your a somewhat of a begginer in HKD, because you think five years is a good level of understanding and can assure it's just the tip of the iceberg.

It takes at least 10 good years to be a somewhat competant Instr in HKD.

[MaxG]

Alright it seems that some people are still not getting the question here. Forget about comparing a 1st dan to a 6th dan or whatever dan. Forget about that. Repeat: forget about comparing a 1st dan to a higher dan.

Again the question is if someone is incapable of teaching lower curriculum requirements to a lower belt should that person be denied a black belt? No higher dan in this situation.

Forget anything but this situation:
What we have is a person in your school just about to become a black belt. For months prior to his Black Belt test you notice that he/she is incapable of teaching lower ranks and the lower ranks seem to never be able to progress when they are being taught or "assisted" by this person.

If that person is incapable of teaching a lower belt his techniques, with what a Black Belt represents and what lower belts are expecting of a Black Belt, would you promote him to Black Belt or not?

[MasterBob]

The question being asked by MaxG is quite common in a lot of schools. Some "soon to be" Black Belts just aren't cut out to be instructors. And we have to asked ourselves, are they cut out to be Black Belts? But I firmly believe that the Master Instructor of the school has a responsibilty to groom all students to be instructors. It my school, I expect my Black Belts to train as hard as I do, and strive to be the best they can be. I also want them to be better than me. And because of my beliefs, I have some of the best Black Belts around. They are dedicated, respectful, and take what they do very seriously. Whether they are 1st Dans or 5th Dans, I know that when I am away and they are left in charge of the school, they are running the school and classes as if it we're their own. They are the type of instructors that I would want teaching a member of my family. My first GM once told a group of new white belts, that we would all be expected to be teachers. Whether we were partnered with another white belt or someone with rank above us. We were expected to teach each other. It was a win/win situation for all of us. It is a tradition that is carried on today in my school.

[American HKD]

Alright it seems that some people are still not getting the question here. Forget about comparing a 1st dan to a 6th dan or whatever dan. Forget about that. Repeat: forget about comparing a 1st dan to a higher dan.

Again the question is if someone is incapable of teaching lower curriculum requirements to a lower belt should that person be denied a black belt? No higher dan in this situation.

Forget anything but this situation:
What we have is a person in your school just about to become a black belt. For months prior to his Black Belt test you notice that he/she is incapable of teaching lower ranks and the lower ranks seem to never be able to progress when they are being taught or "assisted" by this person.

If that person is incapable of teaching a lower belt his techniques, with what a Black Belt represents and what lower belts are expecting of a Black Belt, would you promote him to Black Belt or not?

Ok that's clear!

No he should'nt be denied, most people earn a BB for themselves not to teach.

He should however be denied any type of Intr. qualification, patch, cert. etc.

[American HKD]

The question being asked by MaxG is quite common in a lot of schools. Some "soon to be" Black Belts just aren't cut out to be instructors. And we have to asked ourselves, are they cut out to be Black Belts? But I firmly believe that the Master Instructor of the school has a responsibilty to groom all students to be instructors. It my school, I expect my Black Belts to train as hard as I do, and strive to be the best they can be. I also want them to be better than me. And because of my beliefs, I have some of the best Black Belts around. They are dedicated, respectful, and take what they do very seriously. Whether they are 1st Dans or 5th Dans, I know that when I am away and they are left in charge of the school, they are running the school and classes as if it we're their own. They are the type of instructors that I would want teaching a member of my family. My first GM once told a group of new white belts, that we would all be expected to be teachers. Whether we were partnered with another white belt or someone with rank above us. We were expected to teach each other. It was a win/win situation for all of us. It is a tradition that is carried on today in my school.

Greetings

That's riddiculus, no disrespect intended.

I wouldn't leave anyone in charge of my classes unless they were a 2nd, 3rd dan and they're techniques and personal conduct were at a truely respectable level.

They would also have to be respected by the other students.

Any people observing them would be able to see this person is a professional. That's what I'd call qualified.

I far as I'm concerned 1st dan is just "out of diapers" in HKD and fininished the basics.

I've been around enough to know, I've seen and taught many BB.

[Jointlock]

Greetings

That's riddiculus, no disrespect intended.

I wouldn't leave anyone in charge of my classes unless they were a 2nd, 3rd dan and they're techniques and personal conduct were at a truely respectable level.

They would also have to be respected by the other students.

Any people observing them would be able to see this person is a professional. That's what I'd call qualified.

I far as I'm concerned 1st dan is just "out of diapers" in HKD and fininished the basics.

I've been around enough to know, I've seen and taught many BB.

You may say that you do not intend any disrespect, but whenever people say that, it's usually what they end up accomplishing. I had posted this a couple of days ago, but apparently you did not see it.

You seem to be very hung up on rank as some type of a scale that defines a martial artist. In my opinion rank is an illusion and can only be defined within your own school/organization. I have met 5th and 6th dans that weren't worth their weight in snot. I've also met 2nd and 3rd dans that I would much rather train with because they were much more dedicated to the martial arts. Being able to teach is something that anyone can do, even a yellow belt, but being a good teacher takes dedication, experience, knowledge, and more.

I'm sure you have very good students and I agree with most of your views. However, it seems that you always take some type of moral high ground with your reponses. It also seems that you have found the true do (tao) for yourself, but not everyone follows the same path in the martial arts. There is no one true way. All of this stuff about what a 4th dan knows as opposed to a 1st are moot points because of what I said above.

This whole idea of rank has gotten out of hand. Every martial artist is unique, you can not lump them all into convient little holes saying that this is what a 1st, 2nd, x dan is. The way you run your school sounds fine for you, but because of other peoples beliefs and circumstances they run it a different way. Who's better? Who cares, just train hard and enjoy it.

[Thomas]

Forget anything but this situation:
What we have is a person in your school just about to become a black belt. For months prior to his Black Belt test you notice that he/she is incapable of teaching lower ranks and the lower ranks seem to never be able to progress when they are being taught or "assisted" by this person.

If that person is incapable of teaching a lower belt his techniques, with what a Black Belt represents and what lower belts are expecting of a Black Belt, would you promote him to Black Belt or not?

Ooooh... what a tough case. I'm betting I'll catch some flak for my reply but that's what makes discussion fun (as long as it's respectful)

In the above situation, my vote to the board would be "Do not promote to 1st dan. Re-evaluate in 6 months".

A student who cannot express and assist junior students in class has not properly digested the material and concepts they have been studying. I don't expect them to run a class but to offer help on a technique that they learned as, say, a green belt, should be within their realm of ability. If a student has "mastered" the technqiue and accompanying concepts, they should be able to help others do the same.

In our school (note that schools, and especially between styles vary greatly) we have an expectation of our black belts being capable of limited instruction and supervision and we assure that they can do so. If you can't, you don't get promoted. There is nothing wrong with staying at 1st geup and learning the system purely for yourself... 1st dan and above add the responsibility of promoting the art and assisting with the teaching/learning of it in our school.

[Davey Bones]

Ooooh... what a tough case. I'm betting I'll catch some flak for my reply but that's what makes discussion fun (as long as it's respectful)

In the above situation, my vote to the board would be "Do not promote to 1st dan. Re-evaluate in 6 months".

A student who cannot express and assist junior students in class has not properly digested the material and concepts they have been studying. I don't expect them to run a class but to offer help on a technique that they learned as, say, a green belt, should be within their realm of ability. If a student has "mastered" the technqiue and accompanying concepts, they should be able to help others do the same.

In our school (note that schools, and especially between styles vary greatly) we have an expectation of our black belts being capable of limited instruction and supervision and we assure that they can do so. If you can't, you don't get promoted. There is nothing wrong with staying at 1st geup and learning the system purely for yourself... 1st dan and above add the responsibility of promoting the art and assisting with the teaching/learning of it in our school.

You'll get no flak for this reply from me, Thomas. Some of us have been saying this for 3 pages now! :bang:

Then again, MA is all about repetition!

[Topher]

Greetings,

What you say is all relative. To a white belt or blue belt and 2nd dan may know alot and seem quite good. To a 4th dan or Master he's not in the same leauge.

HKD is not TKD a 2nd dan in HKD is 50 times more material than one more practically usless form.

I can also tell your a somewhat of a begginer in HKD, because you think five years is a good level of understanding and can assure it's just the tip of the iceberg.

It takes at least 10 good years to be a somewhat competant Instr in HKD.

I dont do HKD, but this topic seems to have spread beyong that specific style, despite being posted here.

One things i'm intrested in is the things you learn in the dan levels, apart from forms. My view in general is the dan levels is about simply becoming better at what you already know, and you dont need extra belts to get better.

Say a 2nd Dan stopped grading but continued to train for decades, would he be in the same league as higher ranking practitioners? And more importantly, would you let him teach at your school?

Personally i would want to expand my fighting ability to other ranges rather that simply keep getting belts.

[American HKD]

I dont do HKD, but this topic seems to have spread beyong that specific style, despite being posted here.

One things i'm intrested in is the things you learn in the dan levels, apart from forms. My view in general is the dan levels is about simply becoming better at what you already know, and you dont need extra belts to get better.

Say a 2nd Dan stopped grading but continued to train for decades, would he be in the same league as higher ranking practitioners? And more importantly, would you let him teach at your school?

Personally i would want to expand my fighting ability to other ranges rather that simply keep getting belts.

Greetings

HKD is different than TKD, A HKD 2nd dan has around 150-200 new techniques to learn as well as getting better at the older stuff.

TKD is one form and get better at old stuff big difference.

If someone stopped grading and never learned the new material he should be very good up to where he stopped, however he'd know nothing of the higher dan material.

[American HKD]

:) You may say that you do not intend any disrespect, but whenever people say that, it's usually what they end up accomplishing. I had posted this a couple of days ago, but apparently you did not see it.



I'm sure you have very good students and I agree with most of your views. However, it seems that you always take some type of moral high ground with your reponses. It also seems that you have found the true do (tao) for yourself, but not everyone follows the same path in the martial arts. There is no one true way. All of this stuff about what a 4th dan knows as opposed to a 1st are moot points because of what I said above.

This whole idea of rank has gotten out of hand. Every martial artist is unique, you can not lump them all into convient little holes saying that this is what a 1st, 2nd, x dan is. The way you run your school sounds fine for you, but because of other peoples beliefs and circumstances they run it a different way. Who's better? Who cares, just train hard and enjoy it.

Greetings,

Josh some of what you say can be true and there's always exceptions, you also are getting offended over a friendly discussion. I didn't disrespect anyone just disagreed so chill.

In general however my expirience is alot more than yours, I've seen alot more than you after 26 yrs in HKD and I have a pretty respectable back ground most people would agree.

What I say comes from my expirience and years of learning, the older expirienced guys know what I mean, the younger lower ranks haven't gotten there yet and can't speak from the same time and expirience in MA.

It's not a moral high ground it's called paying my dues and being there done that! :)

[American HKD]

Ooooh... what a tough case. I'm betting I'll catch some flak for my reply but that's what makes discussion fun (as long as it's respectful)

In the above situation, my vote to the board would be "Do not promote to 1st dan. Re-evaluate in 6 months".

A student who cannot express and assist junior students in class has not properly digested the material and concepts they have been studying. I don't expect them to run a class but to offer help on a technique that they learned as, say, a green belt, should be within their realm of ability. If a student has "mastered" the technqiue and accompanying concepts, they should be able to help others do the same.

In our school (note that schools, and especially between styles vary greatly) we have an expectation of our black belts being capable of limited instruction and supervision and we assure that they can do so. If you can't, you don't get promoted. There is nothing wrong with staying at 1st geup and learning the system purely for yourself... 1st dan and above add the responsibility of promoting the art and assisting with the teaching/learning of it in our school.


Greetings

Thomas I agree with you in a sense, a student must have a good level of understanding to pass a BB exam.

But that level is for himself not to teach. He may assist under supervision as you said, but that's assisting not really teaching.

It's more like a carpenters apprentise he mainly carries tools, fetches, watches, does some real simple tasks, but the aprentise can't build a building as the master can.

That's why I feel most 1st & 2nd dans are still apprentises not to be relyed on to build a house yet that will hold up.


Of course that's comming from my expirience.

[MasterBob]

Origionally posted by American HKD
I wouldn't leave anyone in charge of my classes unless they were a 2nd, 3rd dan and they're techniques and personal conduct were at a truely respectable level.

They would also have to be respected by the other students.

Any people observing them would be able to see this person is a professional. That's what I'd call qualified.

I far as I'm concerned 1st dan is just "out of diapers" in HKD and fininished the basics.

I've been around enough to know, I've seen and taught many BB.
__________________

American HKD you seem to be very insecure and I feel sorry for your students. You say you've been around awhile, well so have I. But you have every right to run your school and instruct your students anyway you see fit. I too have a right to run my school the way I feel it needs to be run, even if it includes allowing 1st Dans the opportunity to be in charge of running classes whether I'm present or not. It doesn't matter if the person is a 2nd, 3rd, or the GM himself, as long as a Black Belt has the respect of his fellow students, and the ability to teach what he has learned is all that is really important. You say you have trained with GM Ji, but apparently you haven't learned anything. In his absense while he ran the CA school, 1st dans were called upon to run the school on several occasions. Why? (1) he had faith in our abilities (2) he trusted us,(3) we had the respect of the lower belt ranks. So come on Stuart, get off your high horse and quit refering to 1st Dans as being "just out of diapers". It's unprofessional attitudes like yours that give all instrcutors a bad name. I've read your previous post and find them very amusing to say the least. You seem to have all the answers. Opps, got to go. It's time for a diaper change!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[MaxG]

Greetings

That's riddiculus, no disrespect intended.

I wouldn't leave anyone in charge of my classes unless they were a 2nd, 3rd dan and they're techniques and personal conduct were at a truely respectable level.

Unless you see or experience the quality of any particular 1st Dan you're only guessing at the quality of their techniques. Some schools 1st dan's are equal to 2nd and 3rd dans of other schools. This is true in every association and federation. Not all 1st dans under Sin Moo Hapkido are equal to all the others. As Jointlock says "Every martial artist is unique, you can not lump them all into convient little holes saying that this is what a 1st, 2nd, x dan is."

Techniques and personal conduct at a respectable level aren't exclusive to 2nd dan and above. I am also respected by my fellow students and imho (and my instructors) am quite qualified to teach.


I far as I'm concerned 1st dan is just "out of diapers" in HKD and fininished the basics.

I've been around enough to know, I've seen and taught many BB.

But your Black Belts are probably a lot different than others especially with the mentality that you keep insinuating that they know nothing.

If you have 2 instructors to compare one with the mentality that a Black Belt should be able to handle teaching a class by him/herself and another who thinks that by Black Belt you really don't know anything...

Which do you think, just by their trains of thought, has been "grooming" their particular students better for the last 4 years?

"No disrespect intended" but I know which instructor I'd choose to train with...

[MaxG]

I dont do HKD, but this topic seems to have spread beyong that specific style, despite being posted here.

The more the merrier. Bring your fellow stuidents of your particular syle along and have them give their opinion as well. I posted here because I train predominantly in Hapkido.

I would like other stylists opinions as well but I didn't want to be a post monger and post the same topic in the other style forums. Doing that might even be against MAP rules.

[American HKD]

Greetings

Unfortunatly Masterbob, Max, and Joint are all taking me way out of context and putting a nice twist on my fairly simple concepts. The also can't help name calling and other personal derogatory comments etc.

I think they should stop if they can control themselves?

1. A 1st DAN NEED NOT KNOW HOW TO TEACH TO PASS THE EXAM.

2. A 2nd to 3rd dan SHOULD BE ABLE TO ACT AS AN ASSISTANT INSTR., BUT STILL NEED NOT BE GREAT AT IT. NOR SHOULD IT PREVENT HIS DAN GRADE.

3. A 4TH IN MOST KOREAN ARTS IS SUPPOSED TO BE AT INSTR LEVEL AND SHOULD KNOW HOW TO TEACH AND RECEIVE AN INSTR. CERTIFICATE AND INSTR TRAINING BY THEN.

4. IN MY BOOK A 1ST DAN HKD IS NOT AN INSTR. A 2ND AND 3RD ARE ASSISTANTS (APPRENTISES) AND A 4TH IS A FULL INSTR. OR SHOULD BE BY THEN. 5th IS A MASTER.

CHART OF UNDERSTANDING THE CONCEPTS

3-5 Yrs 1st dan (just finished basis not a teacher PERIOD!)
2-3 yrs 2nd dan (good understanding up to 1st dan) Fair understanding of 2nd dan. Could teach basics!
2-4 yrs 3rd dan (good understanding of 1,2 dan) Fair understanding of 3rd Could teach 1 & 2nd dans I hope!
2-4 yrs 4th dan (good knowledge of 1,2,3 dans) Could teach most!
2-5 yrs 5th dan (good understanding of 1,2,3,4, etc) Could teach everything!

No way in this world is a 1st dan a teacher in the true sense of the word, as I said before he's just out of diapers.

You guys just all want to fool yourselves that's ok with me. I personally don't care how many of you are 1st dan teachers that's your business but your not on a profesional level after 3-5 yrs training.

Sorry folks but in 99% of the cases it just doesn't work that way, unless your in La La Land smoking some strong weed.

[Davey Bones]

Sorry folks but in 99% of the cases it just doesn't work that way, unless your in La La Land smoking some strong weed.

And you've seen 99% of all instructors when?

No one is misquoting you. You yourself have said:

1st Dans are barely out of diapers.
1st Dans cannot make good instructors.
And my personal fave, "That's ridiculous, no disrespect intended".

So, we've warped and twisted your words where? All we've done is quote you.

I'm glad you have your own system of doing things, but sadly, it appears many of us do not share your thoughts.

I've had 1st Degree instructors who were great, and 5th Dan instructors who sucked. It's all about the quality of the student, and with the way you talk down to people, it's no wonder your 1st Dans are still in diapers!

Oh, and for the record, to go from black sash 1 to black sash 2 in my system, you don't just learn a form. We learn techniques, philosophy, weapons, applications of the weapons, and, if you're going to be an instructor, a special instructor's class. Just so you don't think my CMa is all about "forms".

[American HKD]

And you've seen 99% of all instructors when?

No one is misquoting you. You yourself have said:

1st Dans are barely out of diapers.
1st Dans cannot make good instructors.
And my personal fave, "That's ridiculous, no disrespect intended".

So, we've warped and twisted your words where? All we've done is quote you.

I'm glad you have your own system of doing things, but sadly, it appears many of us do not share your thoughts.

I've had 1st Degree instructors who were great, and 5th Dan instructors who sucked. It's all about the quality of the student, and with the way you talk down to people, it's no wonder your 1st Dans are still in diapers!

Oh, and for the record, to go from black sash 1 to black sash 2 in my system, you don't just learn a form. We learn techniques, philosophy, weapons, applications of the weapons, and, if you're going to be an instructor, a special instructor's class. Just so you don't think my CMa is all about "forms".

Greetings

Stop turning this into a personal attacks, I never did that regardless of what you may think my comments are in generalized statements.

It seems when some of you can't handle a different opinion, you can only respond by personal attactks. It's ashame!

MY chart is a General Guide.

I also said ealier there's alway exceptions to the rules so I does'nt matter if I seen everyone, I've surely seen more HKD students than you have in fact!

Next if you're not a HKD instr., I don't think you have any valid opinion on what level any HKD students should or shouldn't be.

[wild_pitch]

hmm i wonder what that means for me, our school does not have any belts past black. we only have 4 belts, yellow, orange, brown and black.

[Jointlock]

:)

Greetings,

Josh some of what you say can be true and there's always exceptions, you also are getting offended over a friendly discussion. I didn't disrespect anyone just disagreed so chill.

In general however my expirience is alot more than yours, I've seen alot more than you after 26 yrs in HKD and I have a pretty respectable back ground most people would agree.

What I say comes from my expirience and years of learning, the older expirienced guys know what I mean, the younger lower ranks haven't gotten there yet and can't speak from the same time and expirience in MA.

It's not a moral high ground it's called paying my dues and being there done that! :)

I took special care in making my post as unabrasive as possible. I am making an arguement for my side of this discussion. I did not resort to CAPS, or any name calling. I respect your experience and time in training, but it seems like you have a perpencity to belittle and dismiss peoples opinions just because you've been around longer. It is impossible to have a discussion with you, because you are only interested in telling people how it is. He who has a full cup has no room for more. My 15 years training maybe does not stack up to yours, but I have been around, and yes I am a special case 1st Dan.

By the way, quick question for you. I was looking on your website last night and I noticed that you're a 6th dan in Sin Moo Hapkido. However, the certificate image that you have says that you were promoted to 5th Dan on April 25, 2004. Is there a misprint somewhere? For someone that's so die hard on telling people to spending the proper time in rank for their next grade, it seems odd that you had been promoted to 5th dan last year and now you're 6th.

[JimH]

Why are we so determined to create timelines for instructors that never existed with the men who founded these arts.

According to GM Suh,Bok Sup,now GM Ji han Jae started his Hapkido training in 1953 and ONE year later he opened his own school in affiliation with Choi.

He left his studies with Choi and opened his own organization in 1956.

So according to much written here,he never learned anything new and never progressed in his hapkido beyond those 3 years of learning,(which according to much written here would have made him ,"just out of diapers"

Now Ji Han Jae was not a live in student of Choi he attended classes,which equalled several hours per week,when he opened his school he was not a master,(which today is 4th degree) he was certified as competent to instruct,(which I would say is equal to a Black Belt)

I do not think that prior to his own school Ji Han Jae or any other stepped on the floor and instructed for Choi.

Why do we assign these goals and restrictions on ourselves.

Just as it should take 3-4 years to get a Black Belt,who says?
Most of the GMs were Masters in 3-4 years and they did not live in and study 8 hours a day,they attended several classes a week of an hour or so.

Stepping outside hapkido,Chuck Norris was a Black Belt in 8 months,Joe lewis was a 4th degree in 3 styles in 16 months.
(Now I have asked both men why it takes so many years to reach Black Belt under them ,when they did it in much shorter time,the reply from both was that this is(and was) the time line set by others teaching these arts in the US)

We are imposing restrictions and qualifications to save our positions and to have eternal students.

How many current GMs stayed with their Master for a minimum of 11 years,to teach everything?

The number of people who even study a form of self defense is 3-5 percent of the populace,of those who enter the schools only 1-3 percent of those reach Black Belt and of those 1-3 percent reach 2nd degree,and less and less stay on to reach Master level.

We are creating a time table which never existed,for what reason?

If you reach Black Belt ,which only 1-3 percent of students ever reach,you are found to have shown proficient knowledge of all techniques up to that point,so you should be able to instruct and teach to that level.
(in schools Kids ,with a basic knowledge of a subject tutor,other kids to reach that level)

Perfection of technique comes with time ,yes,but the instructor,a black Belt lets say,has 3-4 years on the student he is teaching,so if the Black belt continues with his instruction,under his master,he will always be developing and always be 3-4 years ahead of his students.

This is why the non traditional arts are gaining popularity because people do not want to be professional /eternal students,they want to learn to defend themselves period they do not want little gradings to bring money to instructrors for each piece of tape.

The arts went from :Being found competent/certified in the basics,to a white and Black Belt, to a 6 belt system, to now a ten or 12 belt system with 2-3 pieces of tape for each rank,why? Does a student need a piece of tape for every technique or form?

We create more levels,we create more rules and regulations and we think this is the way it should be as we are raising our own pedestal of self greatness.

The reality is if we sent out Black Belts and allowed them to open their own schools,and remain students of ours,we would be cutting our own throats business wise as the students who open schools would be in the same area as we are and our school ,and they would take from our potential student pool.

So we set a policy that 3rd degrees can open their own schools because the number of 3rd degrees we produce is alot less than the number of 1st degrees we have,plus we picked up a minimum of 8 years of having that student around.

Now we send out our 8 year,minimum,student and we make him an instructor under us and we must over ride their teachings,promotions and they must bring stdents to us ,or us to them, for seminars and we get a cut of their money,if not on memberships then on promotions and testing,that we must oversee.

Yes ,I see the reason for eternal students,lol,the same thing the Korean Masters saw and did when they started and it continues on because we think it is the way it was and must be.
But is not the way it was.

[Thomas]

Greetings

Thomas I agree with you in a sense, a student must have a good level of understanding to pass a BB exam.

But that level is for himself not to teach. He may assist under supervision as you said, but that's assisting not really teaching.

It's more like a carpenters apprentise he mainly carries tools, fetches, watches, does some real simple tasks, but the aprentise can't build a building as the master can.

That's why I feel most 1st & 2nd dans are still apprentises not to be relyed on to build a house yet that will hold up.


Of course that's comming from my expirience.
Master Rosenberg,
I think we are saying the same thing with the difference in semantics concerning "assist" and "teaching". I personally see "assitant teaching" as a form of "teaching".... but limited of course by experience, preparedness, etc. The apprentice carpenter is "building" but needs to do so under supervision. Advanced color belts and lower ranked black belts can "teach", but with supervision. And in cases where the supervisor knows they are competatnt, let them do it (like leaving a 1st dan with a clear lesson plan to cover while you are away...)

Words of Wisdom (that I learned the hard way): No matter how crotchety or candid a person may sound... it still pays off to listen to their experience and insights.

[Davey Bones]

Greetings

Stop turning this into a personal attacks, I never did that regardless of what you may think my comments are in generalized statements.

It seems when some of you can't handle a different opinion, you can only respond by personal attactks. It's ashame!

MY chart is a General Guide.

I also said ealier there's alway exceptions to the rules so I does'nt matter if I seen everyone, I've surely seen more HKD students than you have in fact!

Next if you're not a HKD instr., I don't think you have any valid opinion on what level any HKD students should or shouldn't be.


1. The original poster asked other students of other systems to chime in as to what their schools require. Last time I checked, you were not a moderator and therefore cannot tell people who should and should not be posting in which forum. As a matter of fact, one of the posts actually suggested that due to the nature of this issue, perhaps it should be moved into general discussion. It's called thread progression, and if you don't like it, call a MOD or join a Hapkido only forum.

EDIT: Here is the post in question:

The more the merrier. Bring your fellow stuidents of your particular syle along and have them give their opinion as well. I posted here because I train predominantly in Hapkido.

I would like other stylists opinions as well but I didn't want to be a post monger and post the same topic in the other style forums. Doing that might even be against MAP rules.

That's from the thread originator, inviting members of other styles to join in this discussion.


2. You claim you are being civil, and yet you make statements of "If you don't agree with me, then you must be smoking pot". You have been anything but civil top those who have disagreed with you, telling us we don't know what we're doing, yadda, yadda, yadda. Perhaps you should read your own words before claiming others are jumping all over you.

EDIT: Here is one of the posts in question:

Sorry folks but in 99% of the cases it just doesn't work that way, unless your in La La Land smoking some strong weed.

Hardly inspires me to fall at your feet in utter agreement with everything you say.

[American HKD]

I took special care in making my post as unabrasive as possible. I am making an arguement for my side of this discussion. I did not resort to CAPS, or any name calling. I respect your experience and time in training, but it seems like you have a perpencity to belittle and dismiss peoples opinions just because you've been around longer. It is impossible to have a discussion with you, because you are only interested in telling people how it is. He who has a full cup has no room for more. My 15 years training maybe does not stack up to yours, but I have been around, and yes I am a special case 1st Dan.

By the way, quick question for you. I was looking on your website last night and I noticed that you're a 6th dan in Sin Moo Hapkido. However, the certificate image that you have says that you were promoted to 5th Dan on April 25, 2004. Is there a misprint somewhere? For someone that's so die hard on telling people to spending the proper time in rank for their next grade, it seems odd that you had been promoted to 5th dan last year and now you're 6th.

Greetings,

I was never speaking about your case in particular, and your situation is unique no need to be defensive.

My estimation of a 1st dan is 3-5yrs in HKD expirience.

There's is no mistake I only have my 5th dan posted on the web site and I am a 6th dan in Sin Moo, Doju Ji promoted me to 6th a year after my 5th.

[American HKD]

Master Rosenberg,
I think we are saying the same thing with the difference in semantics concerning "assist" and "teaching". I personally see "assitant teaching" as a form of "teaching".... but limited of course by experience, preparedness, etc. The apprentice carpenter is "building" but needs to do so under supervision. Advanced color belts and lower ranked black belts can "teach", but with supervision. And in cases where the supervisor knows they are competatnt, let them do it (like leaving a 1st dan with a clear lesson plan to cover while you are away...)

Words of Wisdom (that I learned the hard way): No matter how crotchety or candid a person may sound... it still pays off to listen to their experience and insights.

Greetings

I agree with you in this light. Thanks!

To everyone concerned

1. I'm NOT putting down any 1st dans it's a wonderful achievement and a milestone in anyone's life, it was in mine!

2. For the purposes of teaching a 1st dan is not an Instructor in my book or any Association or governing body I ever belonged to. You guys seems not to like it and that's just to bad that's not how Korean Martial Arts work.

3. Many of you take offense because I feel a 1st dan only an assistant or apprehentice. Even that is not good enough for you.

My advice is stop putting the "cart before the horse" or "the tale waging the dog", or whatever.

I was a 1st dan and a 2nd and a 3rd and a 4th etc. and worked hard long and that's life.

You may want to start at the TOP but you can't not because I say so but because nature says so.

There are levels to everything school, college, jobs, and yes even Martial Arts.

All I can say is deal with it and pay your dues!

[Topher]

Greetings

HKD is different than TKD, A HKD 2nd dan has around 150-200 new techniques to learn as well as getting better at the older stuff.

TKD is one form and get better at old stuff big difference.

If someone stopped grading and never learned the new material he should be very good up to where he stopped, however he'd know nothing of the higher dan material.
Wow thats intresting. I never knew that :)

What sort of techniques are these. Are they new kicks, punches, holds etc.

[American HKD]

Wow thats intresting. I never knew that :)

What sort of techniques are these. Are they new kicks, punches, holds etc.

Greetings

It's a little different per school but generally.

Attacking techs
joint lock reversals
short stick traning
all types of choke defenses
sit down defenses
lay down defense

My teacher taught around 200 for 2nd dan I'm teach little less

[American HKD]

Why are we so determined to create timelines for instructors that never existed with the men who founded these arts.

According to GM Suh,Bok Sup,now GM Ji han Jae started his Hapkido training in 1953 and ONE year later he opened his own school in affiliation with Choi.

He left his studies with Choi and opened his own organization in 1956.

So according to much written here,he never learned anything new and never progressed in his hapkido beyond those 3 years of learning,(which according to much written here would have made him ,"just out of diapers"

Now Ji Han Jae was not a live in student of Choi he attended classes,which equalled several hours per week,when he opened his school he was not a master,(which today is 4th degree) he was certified as competent to instruct,(which I would say is equal to a Black Belt)

I do not think that prior to his own school Ji Han Jae or any other stepped on the floor and instructed for Choi.

Why do we assign these goals and restrictions on ourselves.

Just as it should take 3-4 years to get a Black Belt,who says?
Most of the GMs were Masters in 3-4 years and they did not live in and study 8 hours a day,they attended several classes a week of an hour or so.

Stepping outside hapkido,Chuck Norris was a Black Belt in 8 months,Joe lewis was a 4th degree in 3 styles in 16 months.
(Now I have asked both men why it takes so many years to reach Black Belt under them ,when they did it in much shorter time,the reply from both was that this is(and was) the time line set by others teaching these arts in the US)

We are imposing restrictions and qualifications to save our positions and to have eternal students.

How many current GMs stayed with their Master for a minimum of 11 years,to teach everything?

The number of people who even study a form of self defense is 3-5 percent of the populace,of those who enter the schools only 1-3 percent of those reach Black Belt and of those 1-3 percent reach 2nd degree,and less and less stay on to reach Master level.

We are creating a time table which never existed,for what reason?

If you reach Black Belt ,which only 1-3 percent of students ever reach,you are found to have shown proficient knowledge of all techniques up to that point,so you should be able to instruct and teach to that level.
(in schools Kids ,with a basic knowledge of a subject tutor,other kids to reach that level)

Perfection of technique comes with time ,yes,but the instructor,a black Belt lets say,has 3-4 years on the student he is teaching,so if the Black belt continues with his instruction,under his master,he will always be developing and always be 3-4 years ahead of his students.

This is why the non traditional arts are gaining popularity because people do not want to be professional /eternal students,they want to learn to defend themselves period they do not want little gradings to bring money to instructrors for each piece of tape.

The arts went from :Being found competent/certified in the basics,to a white and Black Belt, to a 6 belt system, to now a ten or 12 belt system with 2-3 pieces of tape for each rank,why? Does a student need a piece of tape for every technique or form?

We create more levels,we create more rules and regulations and we think this is the way it should be as we are raising our own pedestal of self greatness.

The reality is if we sent out Black Belts and allowed them to open their own schools,and remain students of ours,we would be cutting our own throats business wise as the students who open schools would be in the same area as we are and our school ,and they would take from our potential student pool.

So we set a policy that 3rd degrees can open their own schools because the number of 3rd degrees we produce is alot less than the number of 1st degrees we have,plus we picked up a minimum of 8 years of having that student around.

Now we send out our 8 year,minimum,student and we make him an instructor under us and we must over ride their teachings,promotions and they must bring stdents to us ,or us to them, for seminars and we get a cut of their money,if not on memberships then on promotions and testing,that we must oversee.

Yes ,I see the reason for eternal students,lol,the same thing the Korean Masters saw and did when they started and it continues on because we think it is the way it was and must be.
But is not the way it was.


Greetings

I see what you're saying and you have many good points.

I think standards have changed for many good reason like quality control, and some bad like wanting to milk a student for time and money.

In korea you can get a HKD BB in 1.5-2yrs easy. I have had the privlege of training with many of Korean students 1st dan and such. Most knew the stuff but very superficially and much of it didn't work unpolished.

But they trained 5-6 days a week 3-4 hrs per day to earn the rank in that time. But they're shallow in thier development in such a short time, but if they train like that for 10-12 years they're awesome and made 3rd, 4th dan.

IMO time and effort is the most important thing in HKD. In Korea a BBs are a dime a dozen nothing special at all. Most Association know this and limit who can open a school authorized by an good Association like the KHF.

To westerners a BB is often though of as an "Expert" mainly out of pure ignorance. In korea no 1st or 2nd dan can open a legit school no one will authorize it so thier Instrustors tend to be better more knowledgable. They paid thier dues and learned the whole system the right way.

Here in the US anyone can do anything "McDojangs", 1st dans with schools, etc., you hear it on this forum all the time. If a 1st dan trains for 10 years he's as good as a 5th dan. Most of this is all justifcations for not training with a master for 10 years and paying your dues.

I know a karate guy who's a 1st dan for 15plus years he's now trying to test for 5th per his old teacher. What a joke I see him trying to cram 10 years of training into a few months time. It can't be done? His 1st dan skills are fine but his 2,3,4,5 all suck cause he did'nt spend the time on those techniques.

However you want to slice it, it takes TIME to become a good MA there are no short cuts it's just nature.

[Bob1770]

Greetings

I agree with you in this light. Thanks!

To everyone concerned

1. I'm NOT putting down any 1st dans it's a wonderful achievement and a milestone in anyone's life, it was in mine!

2. For the purposes of teaching a 1st dan is not an Instructor in my book or any Association or governing body I ever belonged to. You guys seems not to like it and that's just to bad that's not how Korean Martial Arts work.

3. Many of you take offense because I feel a 1st dan only an assistant or apprehentice. Even that is not good enough for you.

My advice is stop putting the "cart before the horse" or "the tale waging the dog", or whatever.

I was a 1st dan and a 2nd and a 3rd and a 4th etc. and worked hard long and that's life.

You may want to start at the TOP but you can't not because I say so but because nature says so.

There are levels to everything school, college, jobs, and yes even Martial Arts.

All I can say is deal with it and pay your dues!

Wow, this post says mountains about you, both as an instructor and as a person. I would certainly steer clear of your school and instruction after reading through this thread. You make it perfectly clear that your opinion (and it's just that) is the only one that matters.

[MasterBob]

After much thought, I've decided not to concern myself with American HKD opinions or responses to anthing I might post in the future. I've paid my dues in Hapkido, whether it be Combat Hapkido (which is my passion) or Sin Moo Hapkido (which is why I took up Combat Hapkido) But no matter how you cut it, Hapkido is still Hapkido. It comes down to a matter of interpetation. As long as it works for you, that's all that matters.

Master Bob Ingersoll
CA State Director ICHF
www.selfdefenseusa.com

[American HKD]

After much thought, I've decided not to concern myself with American HKD opinions or responses to anthing I might post in the future. I've paid my dues in Hapkido, whether it be Combat Hapkido (which is my passion) or Sin Moo Hapkido (which is why I took up Combat Hapkido) But no matter how you cut it, Hapkido is still Hapkido. It comes down to a matter of interpetation. As long as it works for you, that's all that matters.

Master Bob Ingersoll
CA State Director ICHF
www.selfdefenseusa.com

Greetings

You like most here are defensive for no reason too my thoughts!

They're not pointed at anyone in particular but they are conservative.

I never said you never paid your dues, did I?

It's clear to me that people want to be considered Intrs. at low ranks, have schools at low ranks, to what want when they want, and G-d forbid someone raises the question of qualifications.

Political correctness in the MA.

[American HKD]

Wow, this post says mountains about you, both as an instructor and as a person. I would certainly steer clear of your school and instruction after reading through this thread. You make it perfectly clear that your opinion (and it's just that) is the only one that matters.

Greetings

Sorry I'm not trying to come off as mine is the only right way, but I don't apologize for being conservative in my martial arts views v.s many liberal views posted hear as well.

You don't see me making any comments that I know what that liberal Instr. all about I wouldn't touch his school with a 10ft pole.

I can assure you from these posts you really know very little about me, except for preconceived ideas of which most are way off.

[Jointlock]

Greetings

You like most here are defensive for no reason too my thoughts!

They're not pointed at anyone in particular but they are conservative.

If most people are defensive about what you say, then maybe the problem is not most people. :confused:

[American HKD]

If most people are defensive about what you say, then maybe the problem is not most people. :confused:

Greetings

Could be :rolleyes:

[funkymonk]

Tough topic (but a good one)

I believe that senior students (pre-black belt) need to learn how to assist in warmups, assist in teaching, and get practice doing it. Here are my reasons:
(1) Seeing or doing something is good. But, teaching something is the most effective way for retention/comprehension/advanced application of the material. You learn more about the art by teaching it.

(2) Senior belts and black belts are looked up and students seek their assistance and emulate them as role models. Any black belt (or senior color belt) then needs to have the skills and practice to be able to assist their juniors. Also, by training color belts and black belts to be able to teach, it allows you to break up classes into more manageble numbers, ensuring a better student:instructor ratio.

(3) The "internship" that students serve learning how to instruct helps them gain a better understanding of the art and provides a deeper level of training beyond "just the techniques". It also helps everyone get to know, accept, and understand each other a lot more... creating a better environment for learning.


Now, as requirements go, we do have a strict requirement for testing for black belt: the student must be able to conduct warmups and assist in supervising, teaching, and reviewing material below their rank. They must demonstrate their abilities over a period of about 6 months or longer before we will consider testing for 1st dan. Why?

Watching a student teach and work with people of various ages and abilities is a good way of assessing their patience, understanding, adaptations, people skills, creativity, work ethic, and so on. If a red belt can't teach white belts their basic form without snapping and yelling and getting frustrated... they won't get a black belt from us.

So, all students learn the basics of supervision and instruction from us and continue doing so through the black belt ranks. However, we do separate out people who want to be instructors and offer more training and responsibility. All of our instructor posiitions are appointed... based on skills and desire, not rank. So, you don't need to become an instructor with us but you do need to learn the basics.Thomas you are a wise man! :D

I totally agree with everything your saying.You put what i think into words much better than me.

[Topher]

Here in the US anyone can do anything "McDojangs", 1st dans with schools, etc., you hear it on this forum all the time. If a 1st dan trains for 10 years he's as good as a 5th dan. Most of this is all justifcations for not training with a master for 10 years and paying your dues.
So any school with 1st dan instructors is a McDojo? Way to insult MANY people here :rolleyes:

As was already mentioned, in some styles you can start to teach your own classes from within colour belts - purple belt in BJJ and green sash in Wing Chun (at least our organisation).

Does anyone know the rank required for a BJJ student to become an instructor with there own school?

I know a karate guy who's a 1st dan for 15plus years he's now trying to test for 5th per his old teacher. What a joke I see him trying to cram 10 years of training into a few months time. It can't be done? His 1st dan skills are fine but his 2,3,4,5 all suck cause he did'nt spend the time on those techniques.

However you want to slice it, it takes TIME to become a good MA there are no short cuts it's just nature.

So do you not teach people new techniques untill they are at that level. Say one of your 1st dans said he didn't want to grade anymore, but wanted to continue training, would he never learn anything new? If someone is ready, and good enough to progress, they should... rank should irrelevant.

With your example, he wouldn't be trying to cram 10 years worth of training into a few months, as he would have been training that 10 years of training for 15 years ;) So if he has been training correctly during thoes 15+ years, he should be at the skill level for the grade he is grading.

On your final comment, i totally agree, it does take time become good. What does rank have to do with this?

[American HKD]

So any school with 1st dan instructors is a McDojo? Way to insult MANY people here :rolleyes:

As was already mentioned, in some styles you can start to teach your own classes from within colour belts - purple belt in BJJ and green sash in Wing Chun (at least our organisation).

Does anyone know the rank required for a BJJ student to become an instructor with there own school?



So do you not teach people new techniques untill they are at that level. Say one of your 1st dans said he didn't want to grade anymore, but wanted to continue training, would he never learn anything new? If someone is ready, and good enough to progress, they should... rank should irrelevant.

With your example, he wouldn't be trying to cram 10 years worth of training into a few months, as he would have been training that 10 years of training for 15 years ;) So if he has been training correctly during thoes 15+ years, he should be at the skill level for the grade he is grading.

On your final comment, i totally agree, it does take time become good. What does rank have to do with this?

Greetings,

Your helping me make my point.

We all agree it takes time, that's why we have time in grade standards set by Masters who realize what it takes, and associations that limted people with a certain time in grade to qualify as Instrs.

It makes perfect sense to me but it throws a monkey wrench in many peoples plans who don't like the restrictions and want it now.

Also from my understanding BJJ has much different standards like 8-10yrs to a BB. A BJJ purple belt may take 5-7 years which is equal to a Korean Arts BB plus another year or two maybe even a 2nd dan.

You don't see a BJJ white (2-3yrs) or Blue belt (3-5yrs) with teaching credentials do you?

1. The point is time is the essence to know what your doing, the BJJ camp knows it.

2. Continued training new material perfect the old until the end of the system in HKD. (you can't learn to 1st dan or so and after 10 years say your a 5th dan it does'nt work like that.)

3. Lastly I teach the system of HKD from A to Z with me you have to test at each level to learn the next. You can throw away all your belts and certs. I could care less, but you have to go through the program.

[MaxG]

Wow, nearly 1300 views and 80 replies in less than a week. Is that a record? And the results are nearly even. Looks like we're pretty evenly split here. 54.55% No and 45.45% Yes.

Too bad you can't add the option of one changing their mind.

i.e. I voted no but now that I think about it I want to vote yes. Or vice versa. :D

[shadow warrior]

I have read the entire thread just this morning at the request of a couple of my students.

The first thing that strikes me is the same old same old splits between people of varied Hapkido backrounds. I started Hapkido in 1977 and most of the 2nd generation instructors in North America at that time held original 7th degrees from the old Korean Hapkido Association (reguardless of which Kwan). The dates on these were from the mid to later 1960's. They were capable of technique and KI demonstrations not generally displayed today by many recent 3rd or 4th or 5th generation 4th - 7th degree Hapkido Masters!
Of course, by the late 1960's early 1970's most of the ambitious 2nd generation Masters had left Korea for greener pastures, making movies, opened their own schools and starting their own organizations.

Their own histories and training backrounds were as diverse as the locations of their martial arts beginnings. Claims by many Hapkido people that their way is the ONLY true Hapkido path while having studied with one single Hapkido Master are flying in the face of Hapkido history. Each and every one of that group had their own strengths and weaknesses. Technique, applications, philosophies, business smarts and yes, teaching abilities. Great technique and fighting ability are not related to whether or not a particular master is a great teacher. A few who were not known as great fighters turned out to be great teachers.

For this reason I do not think that teaching ability should be a requirement for black belt. Instructor is a different story. In this day and age testing your fighting ability to the extreme is not ususally an option within the same context as decades ago in Korea. School and individual challanges are rare today. Every guy is a tough guy until he is on the ground..then he tells you his father is a lawyer.

There is no way that we can compare the martial arts (Hapkido) environment in Korea in the early 1960's to what can be found anywhere in the world today. That was a passing moment in time when many great Korean martial arts people came together clashed, fought, cooperated and embarked on their own particular futures. They selected their own paths.

Yes, there are root concepts, techniques and philosophies which make up the core of what we can call Hapkido. However, what has been diluted in many Hapkido lines today is the actual testing of these integrated aspects in actual application. Their are far too many people (instructors as well), who put all their eggs in one basket. This is not to say one should spend all your time shopping. The my piece of paper means more than your piece of paper because my master is this or that is a dead end! This is particularly true when day to day, year to year Hapkido exposure was to limited a single master within a formal dojang or seminar environment.

Teaching is only a tool to determine if a student has teaching ability. Given that they have the knowledge to explain and demonstrate root concepts. In many cases it is a student with good basic knowledge who can relate to a less experienced student. Example: A physically gifted student has been developing their punching for ten years using physical, mental and internal concepts, but they show no talent for teaching. Their instruction amounts to comments like..well just punch like I do! Why can't you just move like me. A second, less talented student has been on the same path for two years and can explain every nuance of the root concept (because it was so difficult for them to develop), but can not display the first student's superior punching dynamics. In this case the second student can assist in teaching in a way that a much more experienced physically talented student can not.

No 2nd generation Hapkido master was ever capable of demostrating ALL Hapkido techniques with EQUAL dynamic abilities. Both individually and as a group. Each one had their specialties.This is particularly true of the skill sets of fighting and teaching abilities. Given the business oriented, politically tainted, lineage diversified environment prevelent today, it is totally unrealistic to believe that ANY third, fourth or newer generation Hapkido practitioner would accomplish this extraordinary goal.


If we are to pass on the root concepts, (not just twigs and branches) of Hapkido to future generations, we must find and nurture those rare individuals who display a talent for teaching as soon as they can be identified. Assuming they have developed some Hapkido skills to teach.

IMHO


Keith Stewart
Head Instructor
East West Hapkido

[JimH]

Shadow,
Very Nice post.

[Topher]

Greetings,

Your helping me make my point.

We all agree it takes time, that's why we have time in grade standards set by Masters who realize what it takes, and associations that limted people with a certain time in grade to qualify as Instrs.
You seem to think that you only get skill with the belt :rolleyes: If one of your students said "i dont want to grade anymore" would he/she still progress?

Also from my understanding BJJ has much different standards like 8-10yrs to a BB. A BJJ purple belt may take 5-7 years which is equal to a Korean Arts BB plus another year or two maybe even a 2nd dan.

You don't see a BJJ white (2-3yrs) or Blue belt (3-5yrs) with teaching credentials do you?
Maybe we can get a BJJer here to confirm the details of rank training times.

2. Continued training new material perfect the old until the end of the system in HKD. (you can't learn to 1st dan or so and after 10 years say your a 5th dan it does'nt work like that.)

But if a 1st dan stopped grading but kept training for a further 10-15 years, could he then not grade to his appropiate level at that point if he decided to grade again, or would he have to grade to 2nd/3rd/4th dan with the usual time between gradings, meaning he would technically be training almost double the usual time.

[American HKD]

You seem to think that you only get skill with the belt :rolleyes: If one of your students said "i dont want to grade anymore" would he/she still progress?


Maybe we can get a BJJer here to confirm the details of rank training times.



But if a 1st dan stopped grading but kept training for a further 10-15 years, could he then not grade to his appropiate level at that point if he decided to grade again, or would he have to grade to 2nd/3rd/4th dan with the usual time between gradings, meaning he would technically be training almost double the usual time.

Greetings

There's 2 different questions here.

1. If someone learned to apprx. 1st dan and kept training for ten more years he should be as good as 4th dan but only with the 1st dan stuff he won't be any good at 2,3,4th dan stuff.

2. If someone never graded but was taught up to 4th dan and kept training he should be as good without ever graded formally in this case.

My problem is only with the example one, all he ever is would be a really good 1st dan.

Example two is not good either because it's like a doctor with no diploma or license to practice. I believe in getting credit where credit is due.

[Topher]

Greetings

There's 2 different questions here.

1. If someone learned to apprx. 1st dan and kept training for ten more years he should be as good as 4th dan but only with the 1st dan stuff he won't be any good at 2,3,4th dan stuff.

2. If someone never graded but was taught up to 4th dan and kept training he should be as good without ever graded formally in this case.

My problem is only with the example one, all he ever is would be a really good 1st dan.

Example two is not good either because it's like a doctor with no diploma or license to practice. I believe in getting credit where credit is due.

1. And what would the reason be for someone not learning 2nd dan and above material if they desided not to grade anymore once reaching 1st dan? That they didn't have a piece of cloth around their waist? How shallow! :rolleyes: The guage should be on skill, not rank. Yes, someone with rank should be skilled, but it dosn't mean someone without rank isn't just as skilled.

Why would they be no good at the 2-4th dan stuff?

2. It doesn’t mean the doctor wasn't skilled enough to perform, or the driver skilled enough to drive. Anyway, these analogies are meaningless because you can't legally be a doctor or driver without the proper papers etc.

Many many people choose to train without worrying about cloth. No wonder why some people are so pissed of with the belt systems seeing the problems they cause.

Bottom line:
Someone who does have a black belt and above isn't automatically capable of being a teacher because of the rank they hold.

Someone who doesn’t have a black belt isn't automatically not capable of being a teacher because they don’t have rank.

[Thomas]

Lots of analogies going on and lots of good input too (I like Master Stewart's post and agree with most of it as well). Nice to see people from other systems/styles chiming in.

Keeping in mind that individual schools, instructors' philosophies, and style may differ, I like these two quotes from above:


Bottom line:
Someone who does have a black belt and above isn't automatically capable of being a teacher because of the rank they hold.
100% true and it comes down to a case by case basis... based on individual system, school and instructor. My personal philosphy is that if we want our black belts to do any aspects of teaching (from assisting, warmups, small group supervision, to full class teaching), we as instructors must teach them to be able to do it, and I think two ways are the most common:
(1)Teach everyone the basics and have all black belts at the school capable to a certain degree of those tasks. The downside to this is that maybe everyone doesn't want to.
(2)Select certain people who show teaching aptitude and take them on as interns. Downside is that you may miss a diamond in the rough

Someone who doesn’t have a black belt isn't automatically not capable of being a teacher because they don’t have rank.
Certainly very true and we see it everywhere. Again it comes down to individual system, school and instructor. Although, I'd still like to see/know an instructor's background for his teaching skills.

[American HKD]

1. And what would the reason be for someone not learning 2nd dan and above material if they desided not to grade anymore once reaching 1st dan? That they didn't have a piece of cloth around their waist? How shallow! :rolleyes: The guage should be on skill, not rank. Yes, someone with rank should be skilled, but it dosn't mean someone without rank isn't just as skilled.

Why would they be no good at the 2-4th dan stuff?

2. It doesn’t mean the doctor wasn't skilled enough to perform, or the driver skilled enough to drive. Anyway, these analogies are meaningless because you can't legally be a doctor or driver without the proper papers etc.

Many many people choose to train without worrying about cloth. No wonder why some people are so pissed of with the belt systems seeing the problems they cause.

Bottom line:
Someone who does have a black belt and above isn't automatically capable of being a teacher because of the rank they hold.

Someone who doesn’t have a black belt isn't automatically not capable of being a teacher because they don’t have rank.

Greetings

I don't know of and HKD Master who will continue to teach anyone through the ranks without some type of grading be it formal or informal.

Secondly you can't learn higher belt material by osmosis just because your a first dan!

I asked this questions before no one can come up with a answer they just complain about the belt system.

What's your solution?

[zac_duncan]

Mr. Stewart's post is one of the best posts regarding anything hapkido I've ever read.

Thank you.

[shadow warrior]

Some Master's black belts are other people's orange belts. Some Master's black belts are other people's 4th degree's.

I had many 2nd generation Hapkido Master's tell me that anything above 4th degree was in addition to the complete Hapkido system as they learned it in the early days..There were promotions for such things as developing a new set of techniques or adding significant improvements to those were already existed. Contributions to the art were also recognized through rank promotion. This situation probably contributed to the divergence of Hapkido in general.

In some cases it was more important to gain rank status to determine where you sat in relation to other Master's at official functions. In more candid moments some would admit that politics played a SIGNIFICANT role in collecting support for particular promotions. It had nothing to do with aditional skills!

That was then, this is now.

The state of Hapkido today is so fragmanted and self serving (not unlike many other martial arts), that it is almost impossible to determine what techniques and skill sets should be required for any given black belt level.

I know one thing for example: There are not too many 7th degree Hapkido Masters today who are expert traditional archers from horseback. (A requirement for that degree under the KHF).

Until there is a change (LOL) in the political, business (what's mine is mine), and general attitudes of most Korean Master's in reguard to developing a SINGLE standard for each Black belt skill set, ranking is totally Master (organizational), dependent. Financial arrangements for paper are common knowledge.

For example: Should open field free fighting (single, multiple opponents, armed?), third party protection, live blade knife, sword defences, be mandatory requirements for black belt, 1st..2nd..3rd ect?

Are we talking hobby students or professional? In other words; how much risk is a person required to take in order to claim a certain rank? The higher the risk for promotion, the higher the credibility? If they take no risks (severe injury or death) during testing, do they deserve Master status?? Old school..new school??

There are many newer generation Hapkido Master's making grand claims of high rank who have never used their skills in a professional manor or risked death during the process of higher belt promotions. Does this really matter today??


In conclusion; everything is standard dependent. Requirements for black belt teaching skill at most commercial standard levels is not a requirement for promotion. They don't know anything.(Including all those 18 month instant BBs from Korea).

IMHO

Keith Stewart
Head Instructor
East West Hapkido

[Thomas]

Wow! That's a great post... with a lot of little chunks for later digestion and discussion.
I'll be back after I think about some of this... :)

[American HKD]

Greetings,

I have to agree with many things Keith Stewart said.

As a long time KHF student and an licensed KHF Kwan I can tell you standards vary greatly from school to school with-in the KHF. Some Kwans require 500 tech. to BB some only 100 to BB, some even archery.

There are no standards across the board and that is something the KHF wants to resolve but may be hard due to long standing tradtions of each kwan.

It's also very true that skill levels of students and Instrs. can vary from not very good to good, better and best and that will probably never change either.

I still say long term (10 years) Instruction under one qualified master will do the trick over time and I don't mean 1st dan Instrs. (by todays average standards).

Who's qualified is another issue as Mr Stewart said, since standards vary so much.

[Topher]

100% true and it comes down to a case by case basis... based on individual system, school and instructor. My personal philosphy is that if we want our black belts to do any aspects of teaching (from assisting, warmups, small group supervision, to full class teaching), we as instructors must teach them to be able to do it, and I think two ways are the most common:
(1)Teach everyone the basics and have all black belts at the school capable to a certain degree of those tasks. The downside to this is that maybe everyone doesn't want to.
(2)Select certain people who show teaching aptitude and take them on as interns. Downside is that you may miss a diamond in the rough
I think simply because of the amount of time they’ve been training, a black belt, or even brown belt (with no “formal” teaching experience) should be able to easily take a group of people through some forms or one step sparring etc, but to teach a whole class the person should be capable of delivering ideas, spotting mistakes and so on. This comes with time and the best why to get good is to gradually introduce this during the coloured belts. I think this would be better than a six month instructor course. The thought of giving out instructions to a whole class during warm up was quite daunting at first, but now - not a problem.

Even through I’m only a green belt some of us coloured belts usually take, or at least start the warm up. Even the other day I took a few white belts through the first form and basic one step sparring, stuff they already knew, but by doing this now and again at this stage in my training I believe I will be pretty comfortable putting together and taking a class by the time I’m a brown/black belt should the need arise (although I’ve no plan of teaching my own class for a long time, even when I get my BB). Putting a class structure together is easy, even I could do that, but being able to actually “teach” that class takes time.

I don't know of and HKD Master who will continue to teach anyone through the ranks without some type of grading be it formal or informal.
I guess it’s different in Hapkido but in many systems I’ve come across (or read about) in the dan ranks your really aiming to improve on what you already know (I believe the basics are what you will refer to in self-defence, not fancy advance techniques). You do learn new forms, maybe some weapons forms (optional) and maybe some more advance techniques (such as sweeps, takedowns etc), but these are not rigidly restricted to rank. Of course forms are not handed out just like that, you do need to learn the previous one first, but gradings become less of an issue at this stage.

A general question to everyone here, what do you learn in the dan ranks. New forms, new techniques…etc?

[American HKD]

I think simply because of the amount of time they’ve been training, a black belt, or even brown belt (with no “formal” teaching experience) should be able to easily take a group of people through some forms or one step sparring etc, but to teach a whole class the person should be capable of delivering ideas, spotting mistakes and so on. This comes with time and the best why to get good is to gradually introduce this during the coloured belts. I think this would be better than a six month instructor course. The thought of giving out instructions to a whole class during warm up was quite daunting at first, but now - not a problem.

Even through I’m only a green belt some of us coloured belts usually take, or at least start the warm up. Even the other day I took a few white belts through the first form and basic one step sparring, stuff they already knew, but by doing this now and again at this stage in my training I believe I will be pretty comfortable putting together and taking a class by the time I’m a brown/black belt should the need arise (although I’ve no plan of teaching my own class for a long time, even when I get my BB). Putting a class structure together is easy, even I could do that, but being able to actually “teach” that class takes time.


I guess it’s different in Hapkido but in many systems I’ve come across (or read about) in the dan ranks your really aiming to improve on what you already know (I believe the basics are what you will refer to in self-defence, not fancy advance techniques). You do learn new forms, maybe some weapons forms (optional) and maybe some more advance techniques (such as sweeps, takedowns etc), but these are not rigidly restricted to rank. Of course forms are not handed out just like that, you do need to learn the previous one first, but gradings become less of an issue at this stage.

A general question to everyone here, what do you learn in the dan ranks. New forms, new techniques…etc?

Greetings,

You have to understand HKD has a curriculum that goes up tp 4th dan in most cases.

First dan is the bulk of the empty hand stuff, 2nd still has alot of new material and weapons, 3rd a liitle less but harder material, and 4th still less but a little harder.

Advanced material does not mean fancy stuff! HKD is a practicle system not for show or flash.

2nd dan
ground defence
seated defense
short stick weapons
choke tech & defense

3rd dan
Joint lock reversals
multiple attacker
arresting tech
long pole
cane

4th dan
sword
belt and rope tech
knife throwing
revival tech
pressure points

You mentioned something interesting to me, as you improve your own skills you will naturally start to spot mistakes made by others (that doesn't need to be taught) it's a by-product of training. As you become polished in your own skill and gain confidence, have good flow and power teaching come naturally as a result in skill and desire to be a teacher IMO.

Most Masters I know agree it takes around 2nd dan for that to happen 7-8 years of training.

That's my expirience FWIW.

[Thomas]

I think simply because of the amount of time they’ve been training, a black belt, or even brown belt (with no “formal” teaching experience) should be able to easily take a group of people through some forms or one step sparring etc, but to teach a whole class the person should be capable of delivering ideas, spotting mistakes and so on. This comes with time and the best why to get good is to gradually introduce this during the coloured belts. I think this would be better than a six month instructor course. The thought of giving out instructions to a whole class during warm up was quite daunting at first, but now - not a problem.

Again, I agree completely and it can be a good method. For us (our school), we take it one step further and sprinkle in the teaching techniques along with the instruction to provide a "guided internship" for all students. So, at 1st dan, our students will have covered their required techniques as well as learned the basics of how to teach/assist in teaching.

Our philosphy: "Anything you want the students to be able to do (whether it is a defence or assisting warmups), we spend the time and teach students how to do it... and provide the practice time."





A general question to everyone here, what do you learn in the dan ranks. New forms, new techniques…etc?
We do two systems, TKD and Combat Hapkido... progression after 1st dan differs a bit in each. (Note: this is our own school and may differ from others)

For TKD, after first dan, each level has required forms (2-4 at each dan level) and an increased amount of supervision/assistance time in the class. Dan ranked students are encouraged to continue polishing their basic curriculum and are encouraged to branch out and experiment with things like sparring strategies, breaking, cross training and so on to give them a greater depth of knoweldge. There aren't a lot of "new" techniques in the curriculum.

Our Combat Hapkido has a set series of new techniques frrom 1st dan to 6th dan, and covers topics from grabs, kick defences, sitting techniques, etc. The "required" techniques per dan level are relatively small and many of them are variations of techniques we know, but in a different situation, or with a different entry/variation. We are exploring the concepts more than just adding new techniques. At our school, we encourage the dan ranks to get more involved the various "extras" that Combat Hapkido offers (see their video library sometime)... and students may choose to explore more gorund grappling, cane, stick and knife, pressure points, etc.

[shadow warrior]

I just want to explain that I was not just talking about the KHF. I was trying to make the point that each branch of Hapkido has grown away from the crossroads of the early to mid 1960's. However, even at that time the range of techniques and standards were quite diverse.

But, if the standards within the KHF itself (being only one of a number of rival organizations), are so varied and the Kwans so independent in their interpretation of what techniques are required for this or that level, what happens when we consider the fact that very few original 2nd generation Hapkido Masters are actually active participants in that organization? Given the turbulant political history of the KHF through the 1990's, we won't see standardization even within in that group in the near future if at all.

For example:
Most of the practical techniques listed from 1,2,3, 4th degree under KHF, I was required to learn before black belt, some as early as yellow and orange. After black came such aspects as jointlock counters, all weapons, aside from knife, arrest techniques revival and so on.

Understanding a technique and being able to perform it well is required when trying to pass on that technique to another person. However, this does not mean that one has the patience, will and determination to do so. These attributes can in some case be taught, enhanced or encouraged, but how can you instill talent as a teacher?

The variation of the student's own talent, previous training and numerous other factors determination how much experience, talent, motivation the teacher themselves must possess in order to accomplish the student's improvement.

The ability of a particular student to teach a single isolated technique below their level should be a part of learning (improving) the technique themselves. But, the ability to frame that particular technique within the larger picture and relate it to fundemental root concepts is where the standard teaching requirement problem makes its appearance.

How do we determine how effective a teacher is unless we isolate one single student which that instructor is responsible for and test the results? To what standards? Did that student show talent, motivation, determination to improve? Maybe a single student is too small a sample size. How many is enough to test a teacher's ability? Some 2nd generation Hapkido Masters have produced very few Instructors. Does this mean they can not teach, or are their standards too high??

Just for fun..try this:

I think it's time that for the good of Hapkido in general as many as possible of the 2nd gen. Hapkido GMs alive today get together and come up with a reasonable set of required techniques for 4th degree and charge $1 to test plus cost of printing the new certificates.

This would immediately have two effects.

We would HAVE standards! Including teaching requirements, by testing the instructor's students as well!

We would see which GMs truely have the good of Hapkido in the future in their heart rather then their own bank accounts and we would see how many people would give it a try when financial arrangements would mean nothing!

Oh! Caught myself dreaming there for a moment.

Keith Stewart
Haed Instructor
East West Hapkido
www.eastwesthapkido.com

[Thomas]

Awesome post!
The difference between being able to aisst and help other students is vastly different than taking responsibility for incorporating those technqiues into a curriculum. You make great points concerning that and I think all students can be taught the basics of supervision and instruction (to the lesser level as you described)... but the people who have the aptitude and desire to become full instructors will be a much smaller group.

I look at all of the Hapkido students my instructor has taught and see how few stay on to black belt and the even fewer who take the path to becoming an instructor.

I think it's time that for the good of Hapkido in general as many as possible of the 2nd gen. Hapkido GMs alive today get together and come up with a reasonable set of required techniques for 4th degree and charge $1 to test plus cost of printing the new certificates.

This would immediately have two effects.

We would HAVE standards! Including teaching requirements, by testing the instructor's students as well!

We would see which GMs truely have the good of Hapkido in the future in their heart rather then their own bank accounts and we would see how many people would give it a try when financial arrangements would mean nothing!

Oh! Caught myself dreaming there for a moment.
Oh, to be a fly on the wall when that was going on (would probably be unpleasant)

It's a great idea and it would be great for Hapkido, but I fear human nature (and especially Korean style politics) would never let it work.

Thank you for posts that make my head think!

[American HKD]

I just want to explain that I was not just talking about the KHF. I was trying to make the point that each branch of Hapkido has grown away from the crossroads of the early to mid 1960's. However, even at that time the range of techniques and standards were quite diverse.

But, if the standards within the KHF itself (being only one of a number of rival organizations), are so varied and the Kwans so independent in their interpretation of what techniques are required for this or that level, what happens when we consider the fact that very few original 2nd generation Hapkido Masters are actually active participants in that organization? Given the turbulant political history of the KHF through the 1990's, we won't see standardization even within in that group in the near future if at all.

For example:
Most of the practical techniques listed from 1,2,3, 4th degree under KHF, I was required to learn before black belt, some as early as yellow and orange. After black came such aspects as jointlock counters, all weapons, aside from knife, arrest techniques revival and so on.

Understanding a technique and being able to perform it well is required when trying to pass on that technique to another person. However, this does not mean that one has the patience, will and determination to do so. These attributes can in some case be taught, enhanced or encouraged, but how can you instill talent as a teacher?

The variation of the student's own talent, previous training and numerous other factors determination how much experience, talent, motivation the teacher themselves must possess in order to accomplish the student's improvement.

The ability of a particular student to teach a single isolated technique below their level should be a part of learning (improving) the technique themselves. But, the ability to frame that particular technique within the larger picture and relate it to fundemental root concepts is where the standard teaching requirement problem makes its appearance.

How do we determine how effective a teacher is unless we isolate one single student which that instructor is responsible for and test the results? To what standards? Did that student show talent, motivation, determination to improve? Maybe a single student is too small a sample size. How many is enough to test a teacher's ability? Some 2nd generation Hapkido Masters have produced very few Instructors. Does this mean they can not teach, or are their standards too high??

Just for fun..try this:

I think it's time that for the good of Hapkido in general as many as possible of the 2nd gen. Hapkido GMs alive today get together and come up with a reasonable set of required techniques for 4th degree and charge $1 to test plus cost of printing the new certificates.

This would immediately have two effects.

We would HAVE standards! Including teaching requirements, by testing the instructor's students as well!

We would see which GMs truely have the good of Hapkido in the future in their heart rather then their own bank accounts and we would see how many people would give it a try when financial arrangements would mean nothing!

Oh! Caught myself dreaming there for a moment.

Keith Stewart
Haed Instructor
East West Hapkido
www.eastwesthapkido.com


Greetings

3-4 years ago I became poart of an Org called KIHAP, it took a set of standards sent it to many associations and masters got everyone to accept these standards and sign off on them.

No matter which Assoc. you belonged if you tested with KIHAP everyone had to accept you that was on board. No politics!

I thought this was GREAT and I was trying to promote it!

It was destroyed by politics with-in a year. Many people who signed on quickly bailed. It was very dis-heartening.

[shadow warrior]

Mr Rosenberg:

I am familiar with this attempt (I had a $1 bet with a fellow Hapkidoist that it wouldn't last a year, and if it lasted two, we would join), as well as a half dozen other well intended efforts since the late eighties..ALL ended in complete BS no matter how much some of those involved wanted to suceed. Most of the rifts in Hapkido are DECADES old!!! Dating back to old rivalries born in Korea. Most are based on incredible personality conflicts which have been nurtured and festered into many open public wars..those of us who have been around this art for awhile know exactly who the players are.. Of course we can not forget some of the usual North American suspects bent on lining their own pockets through various political dealings..

..as I stated before.. 'caught myself dreaming'...

K. Stewart

[MaxG]

For this reason I do not think that teaching ability should be a requirement for black belt. Instructor is a different story.
Thank you very much for your contribution to this thread. Your posts were very informative and respectful to all points of views which is very much appreciated.

Your concise and well written replies caused me to look at your other posts and I came across this one on Dec 20 2003:


I never promote a student to the next level until they can teach what they are required to know on at least a basic level. Be capable of correcting natural mistakes. Contrived mistakes are more difficult to fix because they usually involve a student with previous training!

Growing through teaching is one way that you can forever expand you understanding of technique.

To do something is one thing - to teach it, is a different kettle of fish.

Teaching ability should be mandatory for promotion at any coloured belt level.

(Bold face by me)
I was wondering why your view has changed since that post.

[shadow warrior]

I think what I was talking about is a minimum level of teaching skill. Just as other skills are tested to go up in ranks, developing 'some' level of teaching skill helps the student understand the finer details of their own technique.

However I don't believe that a high level of this ability should be MANDATORY in order to receive a black belt. A minimum profiency at each level will assist in the progression of the student.

This progression will also help the Instructor identify those students who show promise in the area of teaching.

I hope that this helps to understand my view.

K. Stewart